Tim LaHaye is the Anti-Christ

[Alden]

Tim LaHaye is the boil on my bottom, the sliver under my nails, the hair in my laté, the earwax on my earplugs. The Anit-christ!!!

[truthman]

I wonder what will happen to my right behind when my left behind is taken.

[Lizard]

Originally posted by truthman
I wonder what will happen to my right behind when my left behind is taken.

:rofl:

[Alden]

LOL

[christianweb]

Originally posted by Alden
Tim LaHaye is the boil on my bottom, the sliver under my nails, the hair in my laté, the earwax on my earplugs. The Anit-christ!!!

:rofl: . If he was why would he co-write a christian book?

[Revolg]

I like the books as what it stands for. The books are fiction and they say they are fiction. Now if you go to one of his seminars you might get a treat to real "news breaking" things that pass for him as prophecy. Other than that the Left Behind books are great to read as literature.

[Pilgrim]

The Left Behind books started out as a nice story but to call them great literature is a stretch by far.

Lehay Jenkins have found a money/maker and they're riding it for all it's worth now. The last one I read (Desecration) read more like an outline for a book than a book.

[jpholding]

It so happens that there is a satire of the LB series out and the title is...yes...Right Behind.

Not the first time that one's been suggested.

[Revolg]

The series would be great literature—compared to the Secular Web—they made me think that what would happen if I was left behind. I saw it in church and rededicated myself to the Lord. So it has benefits.

[Sozo]

Tim LaHaye is busy at work on Preterist Beach as everyone shows him their "left behind"

[Joe Corleone]

Left behindism is fiction which is supposedly based, however loosely, on the Bible according to Darby and Scofield style pre-mill dispensationalism, but it is fiction, and that is what a lot of people forget it seems to me. I have no idea how the end will come to pass, and furthermore I do not intend to drive myself into a tizzy trying to figure it out and neither do I plan to sit around worrying and whining about it. I am not going to label myself as a Post Miller or a Pre-Miller or an A-Miller or an XYZ-Miller. They may all be wrong- dead wrong. I'm not gonna be feeling dissappointed in the afterlife because my pet endtime eschatology theory turned out to be a dud. What a fool I'd be, pouting in the afterlife because God didn't do it my way or Doctor Scofield's way or some Post toasties way.

Meanwhile, there are too many other more important things that need doing. Back in my younger days I used to sit and listen to various fundamentalist Baptist preachers preach on the endtimes and the second coming and the last judgement and it terrorfied me to the point I wouldn't let myself think about it. Whenever and however the end comes is far beyond my control. If I watched and read all the Tim Lahay and Hal Lindsey books and movies, I still would not be able to do one solitary thing about the end. I am suspicious of any theology or religious doctrine or dogma which resorts to fear and guilt and shame in order to make or convince a person that he or she should change his or her life anyway.

I'll gladly read a book or watch a movie that reflects the love and compassion and underrstanding nature of Jesus Christ, but I do not plan to waste my time on endtime tribulation worst case morbid bloodletting plague and pestilence scenarios filled with bar codes and nuclear wars and X-Files type market oriented implants and wannabee antichrists. Personally, I think the antichrist(s) are here already, and there are lots of them, they just aren't very well organized yet. Jesus and Paul and Peter warned about antichrists even in their day. We have ours too, and they are the spirits which drive the political powers and principalities and governments of the world, not some intelligent smooth talking politico or pope or preacher in an Armani suit or a uniform.

Lahayism is cheap religious entertainment and nothing more. If I have to be scared into accepting Jesus out of fear and to avoid the suffering and calamities and horrors of the tribulation and the last days, then I'm not so sure I would even be saved.....I would have to seriously question my conversion if I substituted fear for a motivation instead of His eternal love and compassion.

[Hitch]

Laugh In

Brings you

New of The Future

Tim LaHaye III, grandson of the series originator assures Christian Book Store owners association there will be plenty of Left Behind volumn 16 this Fall ,,,should the Lord tarry...

[Darth Xena]

Sozo.. you are SO bad. LOLOL!!!

[spl_cadet]

The Left Behind books are a good read but they are a bit anti-Catholic (though interestingly enough, the three people I know who read them, myself included, are Catholic).

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Sozo.. you are SO bad. LOLOL!!!


It was either that or yell at somebody, and since I joined buttheads anonymous, I am not allowed to pick fights for 10 days!

[efta777]

When I was a futurist I read Left Behind and loved em at first, then started to get sick of them. I then bought LeHay's "Revelation Revealed" which had the opposite effect it was supposed to and made me think twice about futurism. Now that I am a Preterist I read the newest book and realized how blind I was: and I'm not talking about the theology, I'm talking about the writing. Some of it is just LOL bad! I'll read the future editions just for the unintentional humor.

[Darth Xena]

You GOT to read Right Behind. It is hilarious. Everyone's appendix gets left behind, and people get really messed up after having to bash their way through ceilings and stuff.

[Pilgrim]

The writing is pretty much 2nd rate. And it bugs me that people excuse such poor quality by saying, "Well it does serve a Christian purpose." The things that Christians do should be greater by far than anything else because we do it all as unto the Lord and if what we give unto the Lord is as crappy as "Left Behind" (Both the Books and the movies) then we need to stop and rethink what we are doing.

Though I'll keep copies in my bathroom!

[Joe Corleone]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the movie version of LB produced and or financed at least in part by Crouch and the TBN'ers? Several months ago it was on TBN and it ran several time slots. Who was the blonde actor who played the antichrist. He has often played Nazi generals and soldiers in various war movies and TV shows. Wasn't Mr. "T" in one of these Lahay movies? If the TBN crowd support it and are pushing it, that alone is enough reason for me to steer clear.

I was reading a kiss and tell book once which was written by some guy who had once worked in Pat Robertson's organization at CBN, and he claimed that they did a study to see what kinds of resources it would take to do live TV coverage of the second coming and the rapture. Well, gah! I thought to myself, whose gonna have time or the desire to watch TV then? TBN'ers I guess. "Not right now, Jesus...Sir....TBN"s doing a special on you at 12 noon today. Jan and Paul have some nice bighaired interview questions for you, and Benny Hinn wants to show off his annointing for you that is if you can catch his big weekend crusade in Denver....please?"

[Lizard]

Originally posted by efta777
When I was a futurist I read Left Behind and loved em at first, then started to get sick of them. I then bought LeHay's "Revelation Revealed" which had the opposite effect it was supposed to and made me think twice about futurism. Now that I am a Preterist I read the newest book and realized how blind I was: and I'm not talking about the theology, I'm talking about the writing. Some of it is just LOL bad! I'll read the future editions just for the unintentional humor.

That book had the same effect on me fellow preterist :thumb:

Maybe the preterist posse should buy a case and pass them out in Baptist churches (I are one so I can say that;))

[Dark Knight]

I am ashamed that so many of you have taken a negative view of this non-fictional account of future events!

Tim Lahaye is providing a biblical account to save many from missing the rapture (which can happen any day now!)

I suggest that you "Get Right or Get Left!!

The DARK KNIGHT has spoken!

[efta777]

I suppose I could still technically be considered a Baptist as well, if by no other reason than lack of any other denomination

[truthman]

To 'anonymous', joking about it is one thing (i.e. my previous post). Showing a picture, albeit censored, is another.

Why don't we all attempt to raise the level of this thread one or two notches?

I'll start.

truthman

[truthman]

I do admit, one of the most moving sermons I ever heard was entitled, 'What to do if you miss the rapture.', by Dwight Thompson.

It really is no light issue!

truthman

[jpholding]

Originally posted by Dark Knight
I am ashamed that so many of you have taken a negative view of this non-fictional account of future events!


Darn. I knew those tights looked a little...well, tight. :o

OK, I am the Preterist Cavalry -- give me your best shot.

Is Efta happy about the Super Bowl results?

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by jpholding
OK, I am the Preterist Cavalry -- give me your best shot.


"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up."

The DARK KNIGHT has spoken!

[spl_cadet]

Originally posted by Dark Knight
I am ashamed that so many of you have taken a negative view of this non-fictional account of future events!

Tim Lahaye is providing a biblical account to save many from missing the rapture (which can happen any day now!)

I suggest that you "Get Right or Get Left!!

However, that does require that the Rapture indeed occur, and seeing as how it didn't exist until a Scottish mystic dreamed it up in the mid-19th century, I find it highly doubtful that is indeed true. Kinda fails the orthodoxy tests among other things.

[Alden]

Originally posted by Dark Knight
"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up."

The DARK KNIGHT has spoken!

I didn't know that the bible was written by the dark knight!:huh: :D

[GrayPilgrim]

Originally posted by spl_cadet
However, that does require that the Rapture indeed occur, and seeing as how it didn't exist until a Scottish mystic dreamed it up in the mid-19th century, I find it highly doubtful that is indeed true. Kinda fails the orthodoxy tests among other things.

Actually, I attended a paper during the 2001 Annual Conference of the Evangelical Theological Society in which someone showed that this is untrue. I am away from home right now, so maybe tomorrow I can get you the details. He said that in his research he has found the teaching of a rapture dating back to at least the 5th or 6th century. This does not make it true, it just means that your sources may be less than accurate, and quite probably polemical which always tend to skew the reading of sources anyways.

[Hitch]

Originally posted by Joe Corleone
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the movie version of LB produced and or financed at least in part by Crouch and the TBN'ers? Several months ago it was on TBN and it ran several time slots. Who was the blonde actor who played the antichrist. He has often played Nazi generals and soldiers in various war movies and TV shows. Wasn't Mr. "T" in one of these Lahay movies? If the TBN crowd support it and are pushing it, that alone is enough reason for me to steer clear.

I was reading a kiss and tell book once which was written by some guy who had once worked in Pat Robertson's organization at CBN, and he claimed that they did a study to see what kinds of resources it would take to do live TV coverage of the second coming and the rapture. Well, gah! I thought to myself, whose gonna have time or the desire to watch TV then? TBN'ers I guess. "Not right now, Jesus...Sir....TBN"s doing a special on you at 12 noon today. Jan and Paul have some nice bighaired interview questions for you, and Benny Hinn wants to show off his annointing for you that is if you can catch his big weekend crusade in Denver....please?" LOL Did you know that in 1988 as Wiesenhut's date came up TBN was showing reruns ?

[Hitch]

Originally posted by Dark Knight
"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up."

The DARK KNIGHT has spoken!
2 Pet 3:10-12
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
(KJV)


Gal 4:9
9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
(KJV)

Gal 4:3-4
3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
(KJV)

Well this is the complete NT usage of the term 'elements'. It is doubtful our dear Pete was commenting on modern physics but much more likely he was refering to the burning of the Temple long before prophecied by Jesus Christ.

Take care

Hitch

[MJCoate]

Originally posted by spl_cadet
However, that does require that the Rapture indeed occur, and seeing as how it didn't exist until a Scottish mystic dreamed it up in the mid-19th century, I find it highly doubtful that [it] is indeed true. Kinda fails the orthodoxy tests among other things.

*cough*genetic fallacy *cough*cough*

Not that I am a futurist - far from it. But it does help to arrive at the right conclusions through the right means.

Also, you can find an excerpt from Right Behind here (http://www.christiancounterculture.com/cc_20218_a.html).

[jpholding]

Originally posted by Hitch
Well this is the complete NT usage of the term 'elements'. It is doubtful our dear Pete was commenting on modern physics but much more likely he was refering to the burning of the Temple long before prophecied by Jesus Christ.


Darn, ya beat me to it.

The word does mean basic elements quite often in Greek lit. But this is where some of that stuff comes in from Caird's Language and Imagery of the Bible. Even *if* Pete was talking about the gum beneath your shoe, it's still the sort of language the ancient Semitics used to describe big happenings. Like we say, "earth-shattering stuff"...tho' as yet no one who says that immediately looks outside for a new fault line.

JP

[GrayPilgrim]

stoixeion actually occurs elsewhere:


Col 2:8-- "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."

Col 2:20-- "If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations-"

Heb 5:12-- "For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food,"

[GrayPilgrim]

Here is the definition of stoixeion according to, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature Third Edition, Copyright © 2000 by The University of Chicago Press



1. basic components of someth., elements

a. of substances underlying the natural world, the basic elements fr. which everything in the world is made and of which it is composed (Pla. et al.; PGM 4, 440; Wsd 7:17; 19:18; 4 Macc 12:13; Ath., R. 3 p. 51, 17), to disappear in the world conflagration at the end of time 2 Pt 3:10, 12 (Ath. 22, 3; lit. s.v. ... ). The four elements of the world (earth, air, fire, water) Hv 3, 13, 3. Dg 8:2; cp. 7:2 (s. b).

b. of basic components of celestial constellations, heavenly bodies (Ar. 3, 2; Just., A II, 5, 2; Diog. L. 6. 102 ... of the signs of the zodiac;

c. of things that constitute the foundation of learning, fundamental principles (X., Mem. 2, 1, 1; Isocr. 2, 16; Plut., Lib. Educ. 16, 2; Just., A I, 60, 11) or even letters of the alphabet, ABC’s (Pla. et al) the very elements of the truths of God Hb 5:12. This mng. is also prob. for the passages in Gal (4:3, 9 NEB ‘elementary ideas belonging to this world’) and Col; s. next.

2. transcendent powers that are in control over events in this world, elements, elemental spirits. The meaning of s in Gal 4:3; Col 2:8, 20 (for the expr. cp. SibOr 2, 206; 3, 80f; 8, 337) and Gal 4:9 is much disputed. For a survey s. EBurton, ICC Gal 1921, 510-18. Some prefer to take it in sense 1c above, as referring to the elementary forms of religion, Jewish and polytheistic, which have been superseded by the new revelation in Christ [the unregenerate tendencies within humans].—Others hold that the ref. is to the elemental spirits which the syncretistic religious tendencies of later antiquity associated w. the physical elements, fire, air, water, earth, complain to the deity who is over all; they were sometimes worshiped as divinities. It is not always easy to differentiate between this sense and that of 1b above, since heavenly bodies were also regarded as personal beings and given divine honors.—

As one usages is the term used to refer to earth, wind, fire and water, it appears good old Pete could have been refering to the elements.

[MJCoate]

GP,

I am very interested in the paper you mentioned. Can you recall the author or title? Also, are you a member of ETS? I subscribe to their journal and would like to join, but I need a recomendation from someone who is already a full member.

[GrayPilgrim]

I am a student member, sorry. Check with Jaltus, I think since he has commenced his PhD studies [I took the year off] that he qualifies as a full member. I will be going home tomorrow evening (my nephews B-Day is tomorrow) at which time I will be looking through my stuff to find that paper. BTW this years meating is in Atlanta, I would highly reccomend going, if nothing else the books are really cheap [most of the publishers start at 50% off and usually a number of free books. :yipee:

[GrayPilgrim]

Oh yeah, I forgot, if you get a student membership the confrence registration would only be $15!

[MJCoate]

I cant, I am an undergrad and they require a MA.:(

[MJCoate]

Oop. Maybe I was wrong. I just checked the site, but they don't list req. for student members, other than a recomendation. Come to think of it, I sent them an email a while back and they have yet to respond. Though I am a member of EPS, which is an offshoot of ETS, so do ya think that counts?

[GrayPilgrim]

EPS and ETS hold their meetings at the same time, so if your a member of one you can go to the sessions of the other. Both times I have been there have been a good number of under grad's at the meeting. I would think that we can get this worked out. Let me know if Jaltus falls through. An old youth pastor of mine is a prof at South Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary. If nothing else I might be able to try to hook you up through him to sign up.

[MJCoate]

Hmmm. no good. Jaltus is only a student member as well.

[GrayPilgrim]

Here is the definition of stoixeion according to, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature Third Edition, Copyright © 2000 by The University of Chicago Press

1. basic components of someth., elements

a. of substances underlying the natural world, the basic elements fr. which everything in the world is made and of which it is composed (Pla. et al.; PGM 4, 440; Wsd 7:17; 19:18; 4 Macc 12:13; Ath., R. 3 p. 51, 17), to disappear in the world conflagration at the end of time 2 Pt 3:10, 12 (Ath. 22, 3; lit. s.v. ... ). The four elements of the world (earth, air, fire, water) Hv 3, 13, 3. Dg 8:2; cp. 7:2 (s. b).

b. of basic components of celestial constellations, heavenly bodies (Ar. 3, 2; Just., A II, 5, 2; Diog. L. 6. 102 ... of the signs of the zodiac;

c. of things that constitute the foundation of learning, fundamental principles (X., Mem. 2, 1, 1; Isocr. 2, 16; Plut., Lib. Educ. 16, 2; Just., A I, 60, 11) or even letters of the alphabet, ABC’s (Pla. et al) the very elements of the truths of God Hb 5:12. This mng. is also prob. for the passages in Gal (4:3, 9 NEB ‘elementary ideas belonging to this world’) and Col; s. next.

2. transcendent powers that are in control over events in this world, elements, elemental spirits. The meaning of s in Gal 4:3; Col 2:8, 20 (for the expr. cp. SibOr 2, 206; 3, 80f; 8, 337) and Gal 4:9 is much disputed. For a survey s. EBurton, ICC Gal 1921, 510-18. Some prefer to take it in sense 1c above, as referring to the elementary forms of religion, Jewish and polytheistic, which have been superseded by the new revelation in Christ [the unregenerate tendencies within humans].—Others hold that the ref. is to the elemental spirits which the syncretistic religious tendencies of later antiquity associated w. the physical elements, fire, air, water, earth, complain to the deity who is over all; they were sometimes worshiped as divinities. It is not always easy to differentiate between this sense and that of 1b above, since heavenly bodies were also regarded as personal beings and given divine honors.—
As one usages is the term used to refer to earth, wind, fire and water, it appears good old Pete could have been refering to the elements.


thought this might have gotten lost inthe ETS rabbit trail.

[uber_loser]

Quote: "Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unaswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable. How many hours are there in a mile? Is yellow square or round? Probably half the questions we ask--half our great theological and metaphysical problems--are like that." --- C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed

:huh: :hrm:

[Lizard]

Originally posted by Boromir
Quote: "Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unaswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable. How many hours are there in a mile? Is yellow square or round? Probably half the questions we ask--half our great theological and metaphysical problems--are like that." --- C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed

:huh: :hrm:

Hey bro whats up.

[GrayPilgrim]

Originally posted by Faramir
Hey bro whats up.

Where's Theodin? or Aragorn?

[uber_loser]

No Faramir really is my brother. :thumb:

[Lizard]

Boromir:
No Faramir really is my brother. :thumb:

Which I will deny with my dying breath. :p

[Darth Xena]

Wow!! The "mir" brothers.

[Lizard]

Dee Dee Warren:
Wow!! The "mir" brothers.

Yeah, but mom always liked me best :p .

[uber_loser]

Yes mother cried when he moved out.........but she cried more when he moved back in!:p

[Hitch]

Farimiera brobira fee fi ,,,,,,forget it....

[Sozo]

truthman:
I wonder what will happen to my right behind when my left behind is taken.

This is "suitable" but, mine was deleted!

Unbelievable :no:

[Hitch]

That picture should be Woody Guthrie...

[GrayPilgrim]

The Paper was by Francis X. Gumerlock entitled Before Darby: Expanding the Historical Boundaries of Pretribulationism. I will quote a little bit here:

The first evangelcial history of the pretribulation rapture is what one writer has called The Great Rapture Hoax. Very common among avangelcials who reject the pretribulation rapture as an unScriptural doctrine, these evangelcials say that the doctrine of the pretribulation rapture is not in the Bible, and was unheard of in the history of hte church until the early nineteenth century. The concept, they say, originated with an 1812 Spanish publication of Immanuel Lacunza, a Roman Catholic Jesuit. It was then picked up by Edward Irving, who translated Lacunza's book into English in the 1820's. Irving, who started a proto-charismatic group called the Catholic Apostolic Church, and who was eventually defrocked for allegedly teaching that our Lord Jesus had sinful flesh, used to have prayer meetings in different homes. In one of these house meetings, a thirteen year-old girl named Margaret Macdonald gave a prophecy about the rapture being pretribulational. And according ot this view, J.N. Darby, an early leader of the Plymouth Brethren, picked it up from Margaret Macdonald, and spread it to evangelicalism...

Gumerlock then gives the favorable history of pretriber's. Followed by "[Both theories] are only looking at the articulation of the pretibulation rapture in an early nineteenth century context." You can ask for a free copy of the paper at Zondervan (http://www.zondervanchurchsource.com/clip/2001convention/parallel.htm#HT).

Gumerlock is mostly dealing with a 13th Century adherent to the pre-mil. Unfortunately his comment about his earliest date he had found the material was a comment he made in response to a question, and I cannot find my notes from this session.

[GrayPilgrim]

spl_cadet:
However, that does require that the Rapture indeed occur, and seeing as how it didn't exist until a Scottish mystic dreamed it up in the mid-19th century, I find it highly doubtful that is indeed true. Kinda fails the orthodoxy tests among other things.

Hmmm...not a Scottish mystic, but a number of Catholic priests. So besides the genetic fallacy, you cannot pass it off to us Protestants as the originators of the view.

[Hitch]

Alden:
Tim LaHaye is the boil on my bottom, the sliver under my nails, the hair in my laté, the earwax on my earplugs. The Anit-christ!!! Hmmmmmm if you're right what position is left for Hal and the LaLonde brothers?

[Pilgrim]

They're the Vice-antichrists.

[Hitch]

LMAO

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Will there be a separate rapture for ZOMBIE THREADS????

[Joan of Arc]

Will there be a separate rapture for ZOMBIE THREADS????
Not quite, but when they are resurrected, they will take part in the second judgment rather than the first.

[Mickey]

According to Gary DeMar "An Antichrist, therefore, is anyone who 'denies that Jesus is the Christ' and anyone "who denies the Father and the Son" (1st John 2:22).[DeMar,Last Days Madness",Chapter 11].


Since Tim Lahye does not deny that "Jesus is Christ" nor does he deny "the Father and the Son" then he could not possibly be the antichrist.The real question is who is the "beast" in the following verses?:


"And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live" (Rev.13:13-14).


In Christ,
Mickey

[NeilUnreal]

He's more like the anti-Dickens or the anti-Shakespeare if you think about it. :lol:

-Neil

[Mickey]

Is there not a least on preterist reading this thread who will tell us the identity of the "beast" in the following verses:



"And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live" (Rev.13:13-14).



In Christ,
Mickey

[gooner]

Is there not a least on preterist reading this thread who will tell us the identity of the "beast" in the following verses:


sure .....you must go see the rereleased The Omen.Then you'll know ...his name is Damien. :ahem:

isnt it obvious :hehe:

[gharfish]

What motivated you, Theonomy ? What did you want to see happen ?

The doctrine of the rapture is not LaHaye's.

To bump a thread 's OP, which loudly declared that a man (whose Christology is orthodox) is the "Anti-christ!!!".....was a tad unchristlike.

...now if you want to refute Alden's charge, that's another matter. Otherwise you are specifically an enabler to it here, right now.

Isn't it as nauseating now, as it must have been 3 years ago, how too many preterists have an advanced case of the "LaHates," when it's really the rapture doctrine they hate.

[Pilgrim]

Nice, the idea being that any honest disagreement must be based on hate. Well done. Not.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

What motivated you, Theonomy ? What did you want to see happen ?What are you talking about? A Zombie thread is an old thread that's been dug up for fun.

[Darth Xena]

Garfish is on a rampage again. Dude, chill, you take things WAY too seriously.

And it isn't like the dude still isn't pumping out the cheesy books.

[Tim C.]

What an embarrasing thread for preterism.

-Tim

[Lizard]

What an embarrasing thread for preterism.

-Tim

What an embarrasing thread for people with no sense of humor.

[OU812]

What motivated you, Theonomy ? What did you want to see happen ?

The doctrine of the rapture is not LaHaye's.

To bump a thread 's OP, which loudly declared that a man (whose Christology is orthodox) is the "Anti-christ!!!".....was a tad unchristlike.

...now if you want to refute Alden's charge, that's another matter. Otherwise you are specifically an enabler to it here, right now.

Isn't it as nauseating now, as it must have been 3 years ago, how too many preterists have an advanced case of the "LaHates," when it's really the rapture doctrine they hate.




In other words........................................:bawl: :bawl:

[Tim C.]

What an embarrasing thread for people with no sense of humor.

Sneering is not "humor." It is angry non-Christian behavior. Thus, as I said... what an embarrasing thread for preterism.

[No wonder the serious folks involved in Bible prophecy spend their time at carm.org.

-Tim

Please avoid advertising

[gharfish]

Dishonesty !

[Darth Xena]

That he writes cheesy books? I think that is pretty incontrovertible.

[gharfish]

And by "cheesy" you mean ?

[Darth Xena]

You don't know what "cheesy" means? Are you really defending the high literary quality of "Left Behind"?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Why, it means made of cheese, of course!

[Darth Xena]

chees·y Audio pronunciation of "cheesy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chz)
adj. chees·i·er, chees·i·est

1. Containing or resembling cheese.
2. Informal. Of poor quality; shoddy.

http://www.dictionary.com

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

See? "Containing or resembling cheese."

[Cynic Sage]

I am ashamed that so many of you have taken a negative view of this non-fictional account of future events!

Tim Lahaye is providing a biblical account to save many from missing the rapture (which can happen any day now!)

I suggest that you "Get Right or Get Left!!

The DARK KNIGHT has spoken!

"What are you, dense? Are you retarded or something? I'm the Dispensational Fututrist Batman!"

[Pilgrim]

Did I get that right? Someone is trying to defend the literary style of the Left Behind marketing machine? No way. Those guys are lucky that 20th century american protestantism gave birth to the monster that is Christian Publishing because no real publishing house would have touched them

[Darth Xena]

Yep that appears to be what is happening. LaHaye is laughing all the way to the bank. Heck yeah I wish I could write a cheesy series and make millions.

[GreatWhiteHype2]

Yep that appears to be what is happening. LaHaye is laughing all the way to the bank. Heck yeah I wish I could write a cheesy series and make millions.

with you there, sista...though that would eventually raise ethical questions about allowing a LOAD of people to continue to believe your fiction is non-fiction. If I continued to capitalize on this, I think I'd have to answer some serious questions about accountability.

P.S. All that cash I made better be going somewhere other than lining my pockets (or financing my diamond mines in South Africa being worked with substandard labor practices. Holy Pat Robertson double standard, Batman!)

[Pilgrim]

with you there, sista...though that would eventually raise ethical questions about allowing a LOAD of people to continue to believe your fiction is non-fiction. If I continued to capitalize on this, I think I'd have to answer some serious questions about accountability.

P.S. All that cash I made better be going somewhere other than lining my pockets (or financing my diamond mines in South Africa being worked with substandard labor practices. Holy Pat Robertson double standard, Batman!)
Ok, I've told this story before but back in 2000 I was the Guest Conference Coordinator at a very large Christian Camp and Conference Center in California. Every year there was a Christian writing event at which big time writers were invited. That year Mr, Jenkins was on the speaking list.

I can not begin to tell you what a bad taste mister mega bucks left in my mouth. I called to arrange airport transportation for him. If you're thinking he had his own driver you're way off. He had his own private jet and pilot (Sound like Carpathia anyone?) and was planning on flying into a more local airport than San Jose or San Fran. Then he wanted details of Security for him. "Err, we're kinda up here in the Mountains. We usually don't even lock the doors sir." What an ego. And I just kept thinking, "how many of your students could you put through seminary by establishing a scholarship with that money instead of hiring security and buying a jet and you'd still be able to fly first class every time!"

uggg. Give me Anne Lamott anyday.

[GreatWhiteHype2]

Ok, I've told this story before but back in 2000 I was the Guest Conference Coordinator at a very large Christian Camp and Conference Center in California. Every year there was a Christian writing event at which big time writers were invited. That year Mr, Jenkins was on the speaking list.

I can not begin to tell you what a bad taste mister mega bucks left in my mouth. I called to arrange airport transportation for him. If you're thinking he had his own driver you're way off. He had his own private jet and pilot (Sound like Carpathia anyone?) and was planning on flying into a more local airport than San Jose or San Fran. Then he wanted details of Security for him. "Err, we're kinda up here in the Mountains. We usually don't even lock the doors sir." What an ego. And I just kept thinking, "how many of your students could you put through seminary by establishing a scholarship with that money instead of hiring security and buying a jet and you'd still be able to fly first class every time!"

uggg. Give me Anne Lamott anyday.


Though she raises a different set of questions....but point well taken.

[gharfish]

You don't know what "cheesy" means? Are you really defending the high literary quality of "Left Behind"?Sure I do ! Are you really trying to simply point out here that Laheye and whoever his co-author is are bad writers--cheesy ?

I don't think I've said anything about the literary quality of "Left Behind" ? No, I'm sure I haven't. That being true, I am not "defending" it's style as high or (agreeing) that it's low. I've never read even one page of one book...

Let me get to the point, to shorten my 2 posts in now 'rampage.' It is inexcusable to call a fellow Christian an anti-christ for any reason. If their christolgy is correct, and Laheyes is (or am I wrong ?), then it is wrong to pretend that that can even be joked about. It's sinful.

This was Alden's fault. I hope he's wised up, so to speak; feels some shame in that by now.

Deliberately bumping a thread with such a title is not the kind of fun we can honestly afford ourselves if we are to be christlike.

Laheye's and whoever's choice to write fictions based on the pre-trib., pre-mill. and the like--futurism--may be a wrong-headed thing to do, but not because it is sinful to interpret the Bible differently ! He has that right. If he is misinterpreting the Bible, it is an honest mistake. He, and many others, obviously favor literal interpretation, while "Left Behind" detractors tend to have in common not a concern over his writing quality or style, but a strong belief that an allegorical interpretation is better. (True ?)

His novels might be cheesy (subjective), but the eschatolgy of the pre-trib. rapture that would (of course !) leave behind non-Christians.....is not ! The two can be separated.

However, writing fictions may risk playing too loose and too fast with an escahtolgy that truly isn't his...isn't Lahaye's. So, I personally wish he had not done the series. For writing fictions based on a rather precise theology risks distorting it, and frankly, cheapening it.

[Darth Xena]

Sure I do ! Are you really trying to simply point out here that Laheye and whoever his co-author is are bad writers--cheesy ?

Yes, and that is what you called ME dishonest about. In case you haven't noticed I am not Alden.

Let me get to the point, to shorten my 2 posts in now 'rampage.' It is inexcusable to call a fellow Christian an anti-christ for any reason. If their christolgy is correct, and Laheyes is (or am I wrong ?), then it is wrong to pretend that that can even be joked about. It's sinful.


Sorry I am just not that uptight. And I think it is a misrepresentation of Christianity to be that uptight.

His novels might be cheesy (subjective), but the eschatolgy of the pre-trib. rapture that would (of course !) leave behind non-Christians.....is not !

Actually I find both somewhat cheesy to be honest. I find the idea of a pretrib rapture unbiblical and foolish.

But you are being silly by getting worked up over an obvious joke. If you don't care for the humour don't come to the thread, but don't expect everyone else to get their undies all in a bunch. We are quirky like that here, we joke, and we don't care for anyone's sacred cows, our own included.

[OU812]

But you are being silly by getting worked up over an obvious joke. If you don't care for the humour don't come to the thread, but don't expect everyone else to get their undies all in a bunch. We are quirky like that here, we joke, and we don't care for anyone's sacred cows, our own included.

Oh, don't worry. garfish is just mad because a preterist got BBQ on garfish's bathrobe.........:lol:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Garfish is the AntiChrist. Ha ha.

[Darth Xena]

garfish explosion coming up

everyone take cover

[OU812]

Spring, Sprang, Sprung!!

[OU812]

Darth Xena: "You have allowed this C. I. Scofield to twist your mind........."


garfish: "I ABSOLUTELY DON'T eat BBQ!"

[gharfish]

Yes, and that is what you called ME dishonest about. In case you haven't noticed I am not Alden.No, I called the collective side-tracking of the issue, of those being a party to characterizing a man who is our brother in Christ, FOR HAVING CORRECT CHRISTOLGY, as the, or an, "Anti-Christ" as having acted wrongly. It is dishonest to think it at all morally OK to call him (LaHeye) anti-christ, in any form, because all we here know who that was (Nero/someone like him in the future) and what the spirit of anti-Christ is. Right ?! Sorry I am just not that uptight. And I think it is a misrepresentation of Christianity to be that uptight.Maybe you should be...and that would be because you had re-thought that no matter how you regard anti-Christ, person or in spirit, it is someone/something that at least denies the deity of Jesus, if not openly opposes Him with great evil. It still (!) is dishonest to think that this can be a matter to joke about--not for us anyway. The unbeliever ? Well, they are not bound by our law of love.Actually I find both somewhat cheesy to be honest. I find the idea of a pretrib rapture unbiblical and foolish.That's fine by me. I find the light preterist and moderate preterist interpretations to be incorrect. Bad interpretation. Hyperpreterism completely falls outside of all othodoxy.

So what, then ? Can I call your scholars (moderates, right ?) anti-Christs ? ...you know, all in the spirit of 'obvious' innocent fun ?But you are being silly by getting worked up over an obvious joke. If you don't care for the humour don't come to the thread, but don't expect everyone else to get their undies all in a bunch. We are quirky like that here, we joke, and we don't care for anyone's sacred cows, our own included.The humor, you say ? Hhhm. No, this is all about spoiling for a fight. You three, four, are baiting me like crazy ! You are drooling to see me get my undies all in a bunch. The traps are set above.

YES: This was precisely the "fun" Theonomy had in mind when he chose to bump this thread--esp. this one in poarticular. Innocent fun ? Baloney. Now he calls me the Anti-Christ. Why ?

Doesn't matter; he's proved my point.

Call Laheye on his sins, but have the decency to keep your passions within true debate, unless you are hoping for *uh* "rampages" to give preterism some more air play. Does it work that way ? Ingenuine trolling, Theonomy. Fishing with dynamite.

And you see; only the unskilled need do that, and you two are not. You two can debate theology, seriously, in true TWeb style...and therby keep it honest, or shall I say on the real issue at hand. No, y'all don't have the "LaHates," you rather hate the rapture theory. I did make that clear, I surely did think... ! Pilgrim misunderstood me, twice.

So go with that honorable angle. Going after the high-profile futurists, frequently looking for nut jobs on the worldwide web to lampoon; that only serves to hinder the good name of orthodox preterism. Keep it real and the theology that you wish to share will go a whole lot further and smoother here, IMO. Who would be attracted to a sub-set's POV if they saw anything resembling a bullying, even when it's sporadically 'played.'

[Darth Xena]

That wasn't even a good rant Garfish. You can do better.

And yes if you want to joke, call some preterist the anti-christ. If I know you are joking I will not care. Really. Don't be wound so tight. And do try to aim a little better. I didn't start this thread, I didn't call anyone an anti-christ, and you jumped all over me. Settle down, you are doing exactly what you did on that Lindsey thread a long time ago.

[gharfish]

That wasn't even a good rant Garfish. You can do better.True. I did back on that Hal Lindsey thread when he was called a false prophet; also an inflammatory (and subjective) 'damning' of an undesirable man. Again, we know what evil there is in the Bible's false prophet. TWeb's preterism's definition may vary downwardly in intensity; I don't know. It may be that we are both doing again what we did on that Hal Lindsey thread of your's.And yes if you want to joke, call some preterist the anti-christ. If I know you are joking I will not care. Really. Don't be wound so tight. And do try to aim a little better. I didn't start this thread, I didn't call anyone an anti-christ, and you jumped all over me. Settle down, you are doing exactly what you did on that Lindsey thread a long time ago.But that's just it ! I don't want to joke. My point was we cannot rightly do that to anybody who is our fellow in the Lord. If he has sinned, then that we can entertain as "charges against".....but not the OP's veiled "joke;" putting out there in big, bold, black-and-white that disgraceful thing. Is LaHeye sincerely trying to further the Kingdom of God with "Left Behind" ? I figure he is, but his books may not be doing that. I don't know. Honestly, I don't. The related movies are doing more harm than good, IMO. He shouldn't be signing his name, so to speak, to at least two (that I have seen). I've only seen two, but they both were heavy on speculation ans sillyness too.

Anyway, so if LaHeye is to be repeatedly criticized for harming the work of God with his "Left Behind" series (that work is essentially evangelism--salvationism--and caring for the needs of the poor and diseased and suffering), if that is the case, then the focus should be on how he is doing that harm. Otherwise, he can only be a target for interpreting *for so may the Bible incorrectly: in the isolated area of futurism.

"He 'has" many godly scholars that generally--even closely--agree with him; people like J. Dwight Pentecost, the late John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie.....the late Zola Levitt, etc. "Y'all" have godly scholars too ! I confess ignorance on the specific persons, but that is my lack of knowledge on preterism as (another) esch. POV.

I think very highly of R.C. Sproul; he is a preterist, right ? He is one of my very favorite people to listen to on my local Christian radio station. I have learned alot from him, and I really appreciate and admire him. I did not like his book "The Last Days According to Jesus," but that is only because I interpret the (same) scriptures differently. I wish it would kind of go away, frankly ! But not Sproul or other godly, serious, sincere, scholars who (also) interpret 'that way.' No ! I want preterism to go away !!

Don't you want futurism, in any variation of it's form, to be swept away--to be permantly, universally, understood as unbiblical ?

I understand how a high profile rep. kind of person like LaHeye (Lindsey, Van Impe) can become mixed-up with a person's strong disliking for their doctrinal stance on something. For ex.: for me:: last night I saw a hot new book on traditionalism"'s" view of hell. It was "28 Minutes in Hell," bigger than life/flames leaping across the cover on a mid aisle "spiritualty" kiosk at Wal-Mart. I got upset because I passionately disagree with the hell he said he saw in a near death experience. Well, enough about that.

I am not unhappy when I see preterism debated in threads made for that, but I have a big problem with baiting done.....exactly like this thread was, and became again. It is unfair. Neither side should do it. I don't go to the eschatology threads. I believe you when you say there are futurist bullies there.

I replied to you, and you only, because you, DDW, were worthy of responding to.....amid all the mean-spirited flack oof the OU812's (and, now, from Theonomy).

I see there's a basketball thread in progress that you are a part of (4, altogether). That's alright by me. That's what TheologyWeb is all about-->"We Debate Theology, Seriously." As one of the owners, to you I owe a debt of gratitude--a deserved thanks--for being so generous as to provide this site.





*It is a real problem when believers choose very unwisely to short-cut their way into an important doctrinal belief with an unexamined presentation from an 'expert,' their (own) Bible uncracked on that matter !

[OU812]

You three, four, are baiting me like crazy ! You are drooling to see me get my undies all in a bunch. The traps are set above.


Spring, Sprang, Sprung!!!






I think very highly of R.C. Sproul; he is a preterist, right ? He is one of my very favorite people to listen to on my local Christian radio station. I have learned alot from him, and I really appreciate and admire him. I did not like his book "The Last Days According to Jesus," but that is only because I interpret the (same) scriptures differently. I wish it would kind of go away, frankly ! But not Sproul or other godly, serious, sincere, scholars who (also) interpret 'that way.' No ! I want preterism to go away !!



It's official folks.....................garfish ABSOLUTELY HATES BBQ!!! :lol:

[gharfish]

Look man; I don't know you are and I have no idea what you are talking about. If this BBQ on my bathrobe theme you've got going and going means something, if would have to be an insider's joke; perhaps like one between you and an imaginary friend.

Let me in on the internal hijinks; that way I'll have a piece of an actual concept--maybe even related to the topic--for my consideration.

If this barbBQing (ha !) of me is to go further, into a glorious (fourth ? fifth ? installment) do make the next one be alot more about your own thoughts and not those of your rolfing emoticons.

Yes, if you decide you must post again in my direction, say something intelligible at that time .....up front, completely "in person."

If this self-amusement turns out to be all you've ever had to contribute--well, at least you have an A+ for effort in my book, for so very thoroughly finally driving whatever it was deeply into the ground. It hadn't lost any of it's giggle powers up to the very end, that it didn't have back when the gag was first hatched. Congrats on it's longevity and polish !

[OU812]

Look man; I don't know you are and I have no idea what you are talking about. If this BBQ on my bathrobe theme you've got going and going means something, if would have to be an insider's joke; perhaps like one between you and an imaginary friend.

Let me in on the internal hijinks; that way I'll have a piece of an actual concept--maybe even related to the topic--for my consideration.

If this barbBQing (ha !) of me is to go further, into a glorious (fourth ? fifth ? installment) do make the next one be alot more about your own thoughts and not those of your rolfing emoticons.

Yes, if you decide you must post again in my direction, say something intelligible at that time .....up front, completely "in person."

If this self-amusement turns out to be all you've ever had to contribute--well, at least you have an A+ for effort in my book, for so very thoroughly finally driving whatever it was deeply into the ground. It hadn't lost any of it's giggle powers up to the very end, that it didn't have back when the gag was first hatched. Congrats on it's longevity and polish !





:lol:

[gharfish]

TO DEE DEE WARREN: ....."He 'has" many godly scholars that generally--even closely--agree with him; people like J. Dwight Pentecost, the late John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie.....the late Zola Levitt, etc. "Y'all" have godly scholars too ! I confess ignorance on the specific persons, but that is my lack of knowledge on preterism as (another) esch. POV.

1: I think very highly of R.C. Sproul; he is a preterist, right ? He is one of my very favorite people to listen to on my local Christian radio station. I have learned alot from him, and I really appreciate and admire him. I did not like his book "The Last Days According to Jesus,"[/I] but that is [I]only because I interpret the (same) scriptures differently. I wish it would kind of go away, frankly ! But not Sproul or other godly, serious, sincere, scholars who (also) interpret 'that way.' No ! I want preterism to go away !!

2: Don't you want futurism, in any variation of it's form, to be swept away--to be permantly, universally, understood as unbiblical ?

I understand how a high profile rep. kind of person like LaHeye (Lindsey, Van Impe) can become mixed-up with a person's strong disliking for their doctrinal stance on something..."

I am not unhappy when I see preterism debated in threads made for that, but I have a big problem with baiting done.....exactly like this thread was, and became again. It is unfair. Neither side should do it. I don't go to the eschatology threads. I believe you when you say there are futurist bullies there.

I replied to you, and you only, because you, DDW, were worthy of responding to.....amid all the mean-spirited flak of the OU812's (and, now, from Theonomy)......"Had you been a stand-up kind of guy, you would have connected paragraphs 1 and 2 to start with; marked above for your benefit.

Then it would have been seen by the "folks," in context. That is what we call fair behavior in debating.




Turns out I was right; all you had in you were smileys.

So I will honor your vow of mental poverty, Zeng Master. I leave you now with the sound of one hand clapping.

[OU812]

So I will honor your vow of mental poverty, Zeng Master. I leave you now with the sound of one hand clapping.


:lol:


I give you an 'A+' for that excellent display of 'giggle power'......




And..................I'll no longer leave you in the dark.

The 'BBQ on your bathrobe' schtick was a metaphor for your dislike of preterism (and an MTV parody).........:wink:







Regards,

OU812

[gharfish]

Had you been a stand-up kind of guy, you would have connected paragraphs 1 and 2 to start with; marked above for your benefit.

Then it would have been seen by the "folks," in context. That is what we call fair behavior in debating.Pay attention !




No, never mind. A man whose muse is MTV ain't doing his own work.

[OU812]

Pay attention !



Wha?


You mean, you were addressing ME with that earlier post? In other words, I was the 'Zeng Master', the you were referring to........:lol:

I don't understand. Aren't you at least content that I let you in on the 'private joke'? :hug:





No, never mind. A man whose muse is MTV ain't doing his own work.

As for MTV being my 'muse'......we both know that where the inspiration for that metaphor came from isn't the issue, but rather what the metaphor stood for (or against) that is the issue for you......:wink:

[gharfish]

"(...I don't understand. Aren't you at least content that I let you in on the 'private joke'?) :hug:

As for MTV being my 'muse'......we both know that where the inspiration for that metaphor came from isn't the issue, but rather what the metaphor stood for (or against) that is the issue for you......:wink:I made no secret at all that I think preterism is an incorrect interpretation. So then ?

The "metaphor" of BBQ on a bathrobe has no meaning to me other than it was some very obtuse way of your expression of your opposition to "my" futurism.

Having said to DDW that we were both wishing the other view would be one day universally understood to be finally, permanently, irreversibly, the incorrect interpretation is simply honest--was right straight to the point, in fact !

What problem do you have with such straightforwardness ? You've for the tenth time just played around, bringing absolutely nothing to the conversation and ignoring the obvious contextual meaning of the quote you misrepresesnted, by deleting the follow-up directly related pargraph.

The inside joke (for you) taken out of the treasure trove of MTV humor has no high meaning whatsoever; it's just a oblique expression of what's only a --your-- differing personal opinion. Big deal !

Therefore, maybe you can provide another smart, hip *uh* "metaphor" from gen. X pop culture, for me to employ that "goes against 'your issue."

Do you stand by the morality of calling a fellow Christian "the Anti-Christ" for being a high-profile, highly bothersome futurist.....for being guilty of writing fiction & endorsing silly films based on (it) ? Weigh in !

Am I also fairly 'joked' about as being the Antichrist ? Honestly.

Was that fair treatment you think for me calling Theonomy on indulging a baser motive in deliberately resurrecting a wrongly motivated thread--(ostensibly for the sake of getting around to (the bettering )?) of the Kingdom with a re-education on this SUPER-IMPORTANT must see POV ?)

Surely it's sturdy enough that that kind of toying never need be done for it.

IMO, it ironically makes preterism look worse for wear, lessening the attractiveness for people who might otherwise be much more inclined to look into it. 0U812; might that be sort of what you are doing to it here ?


If the Anti-Christ definition of that theology can so easily allow such 'jokes,' then screw it. I see that the latest tasteless--wrong, actually--joke from the "Tim Laheye is the Anti-Christ" bumper is the photoshopping of a gerbil head onto that of a Pope.




But back to you, 0U812. As a preterist, what are your thoughts, in some detail, on the two main topics raised ? If you haven't any then I would say this is done with, entirely; long overdue.

I've never used a smiley in all my time here on TWeb, but maybe it's time I get with the times and click-up a couple, three.

*They're cool--not Sammy Hagar-level cool, but...*

Until / if then; a "wink" and "hug" to you too.

[OU812]

I made no secret at all that I think preterism is an incorrect interpretation. So then ?

The "metaphor" of BBQ on a bathrobe has no meaning to me other than it was some very obtuse way of your expression of your opposition to "my" futurism.

Having said to DDW that we were both wishing the other view would be one day universally understood to be finally, permanently, irreversibly, the incorrect interpretation is simply honest--was right straight to the point, in fact !

What problem do you have with such straightforwardness ?


garfish, I have to ask: why are you so burned up over this? It would seem that you're looking for things to complain about, considering that my joke has been over for about a week now, and all I've done since then is to take humour in your understandably humorous reactions.




You've for the tenth time just played around, bringing absolutely nothing to the conversation and ignoring the obvious contextual meaning of the quote you misrepresented, by deleting the follow-up directly related pargraph.

What have I 'misrepresented', though?? I have only highlighted sections that I thought were funny in light of the whole 'BBQ' joke and your reaction to them. I sure didn't 'misrepresent' the positions of preterism vs. futurism .



The inside joke (for you) taken out of the treasure trove of MTV humor has no high meaning whatsoever; it's just a oblique expression of what's only a --your-- differing personal opinion. Big deal !

Who says that my joke was supposed to have some kind of 'high meaning' to it? "Big deal!" indeed..........




Therefore, maybe you can provide another smart, hip *uh* "metaphor" from gen. X pop culture, for me to employ that "goes against 'your issue."

Actually, YOU can go ahead and do that for yourself, and see if I get bent out of shape over it (after first laughing about it...............) :thumb:




Do you stand by the morality of calling a fellow Christian "the Anti-Christ" for being a high-profile, highly bothersome futurist.....for being guilty of writing fiction & endorsing silly films based on (it) ? Weigh in !

Am I also fairly 'joked' about as being the Antichrist ? Honestly.

Of course not. But that's not the real issue here.............




Was that fair treatment you think for me calling Theonomy on indulging a baser motive in deliberately resurrecting a wrongly motivated thread--(ostensibly for the sake of getting around to (the bettering )?) of the Kingdom with a re-education on this SUPER-IMPORTANT must see POV ?)

Side issue......................



Surely it's sturdy enough that that kind of toying never need be done for it.

'Ditto' for the other side.



IMO, it ironically makes preterism look worse for wear, lessening the attractiveness for people who might otherwise be much more inclined to look into it. 0U812; might that be sort of what you are doing to it here ?

Uh oh, what we've all been waiting for..........the 'slippery slope' angle that sooner or later shows up in a debate.

Again, 'ditto' for the futurist side.......



But back to you, 0U812. As a preterist, what are your thoughts, in some detail, on the two main topics raised ?

Basically, preterism fits within a first-century Jewish context, and as such, is more likely to have been the position of Jesus and the Apostles.

Futurism, otoh, does not. It fits more with pagan philosophies like Stoicism, and perhaps even Zoroastrianism (if their eschatology is correctly viewed as 'literal') or Masonic/Freemason elements. That the early church father Irenaeus may have been a futurist or 'pre-millenialist' wouldn't mitigate against this; rather, it would be explained by the non-Jewish character of this worldview.

Stark literalism, along with it's opposing 'pole' of a largely allegorical outlook, was a hallmark of Hellenistic thought for much of the Greco-Roman period, and I dare say has stayed with the West for a long time (so far......)

The typological language found in the various Judaic movements, weren't beholden to any literalistic OR 'allegorical' interpretation when it came to eschatology. The Jewish 'near' expectation was the remaking of the world order , not a literal cessation of the cosmos (which would be later and of less concern) I dare say that this view that saw much eschatological fulfillment happening within the same generation was adopted wholesale by the first Christians.





*They're cool-- not Sammy Hagar -level cool, but...*

Until / if then; a "wink" and "hug" to you too.


:teeth:






Regards,

OU812

[Darth Xena]

Sammy Hagar is cool?


I thought he was the antichrist actually. All those red outfits and all.

[OU812]

Sammy Hagar is cool?


I thought he was the antichrist actually. All those red outfits and all.



:rofl:



Yes, Darth Xena................the "Red Rocker" is the anti-christ.....

[gharfish]

Good enough then, OU812. I think we're clear on what my objections were; they weren't about a joke at my expense, although that was truly aggravating. Naturally, I expected you to address what I had written long, long ago.....just right before I was first being messed with by you (and a few others).

We can certainly agree to disagree (as far as I'm concerned) about eschatology.

Perhaps at the center of this whole business is the absurdity that because one is a preterist they can call a fellow orthodox Christian "the Anti-Christ" and think of it not even meaning one having the spirit of anti-Christ, but otherwise acceptable (too) because to the preterist "the Anti-Christ" is a nobody...literally.

So LaHeye, and I, can be called that 'jokingly' because we all know--"because we believe the Bible"--that Anti-Christ was Rome w/Nero attached, and that makes it OK. Because I am a futurist it's my own fault to take offense at being personally called this (?!)





You started the goofy BBQ hoopla, OU812. You came after me, remember. Now you ask me why I am burned up ? That would be because of your hiding behind a joke nearly forever (still, yet to be explained--don't bother) that was only meant to taunt me......repeatedly.

But, finally you've said something that has to do with the blinking topic. ALTHOUGH, it was never my intention to put down preterism--discredit it; only to say Play fair ! "Be serious y'all about what you are really up to."




Why is it hard to see the logic in properly refraining from maligning any man whose christology is correct; being a party to calling them "the Anti-Christ" regardless of the fact that one's 'eschatology' says it's OK for having proven that there is no such a person as this real, historical, purely evil person ? It's a slap in the face for those who do, and no matter: the spirit of anti-Christ is agreed upon by all--both sides.

It's true that preterists are indeed/truly serious and honest 'all the time' here on TWeb. I have no problem with that ! I want to see that.

However, this stuff is dredged-up simply to aggravate; deliberately. I can imagine that if Theonomy is still noticing this thread title pop-up over and over and over again, he may feel satisfied that the bumping of it has brought him all the fun and more that he was fishing for to start with. And if so: "good" for him.








-----------------------------------------------------------------
If only you were a little more mature (in yrs.) you would know like I do that Van Halen definitely was diminished by 50% when David Lee Roth left the band. It all ended in 1984 ! And, sadly, you were born too late to understand that Dire Straits' last good album was "Love Over Gold" in '82.

I kid. I kid. "To each their own." (See; now this is good fun between fellow Christians.)

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I think half the humour of the thread OP is that futurists who write bad books - although not Lahaye, unless I am mistaken, like to play games like pin the tail on the antiChrist, or "who's the beast"? etc.

[gharfish]

(True.)

Were we right up into the latter days, it would still be quite difficult to identify some few 'best possible candidates;' that until it was essentially too late to do anyone any good in the trying.

LaHeye's bad fiction that I have seen is in whatever part (just endorsing, if nothing else) he has in the making of the various "Left Behind" movies. They are embarrassingly silly, and to make a story he (or whoever) is forced to assert things like the "revived Roman Empire" is the U.N. or E.U. --that sort of irresponsibilty, in carelessly straying well into speculation that is not befitting "his" eschatology.

He can't help but effectively hi-jack it off somewhere when he insists on writing or endorsing (the LaLond's ?) fictions based on 'it.' It's not their's to make into entertainment. It's far too imprecise to ever be handled as such. It cheapens the general interpretation it takes from.

So, if I were in his BIG shoes I should think it well satisfying enough to stop/be done with the (numerous) "please; justs the 'facts,' ma'am" kind of study books he's already got out there......in every Christian bookstore--secular too.

[OU812]

If only you were a little more mature (in yrs.) you would know like I do that Van Halen definitely was diminished by 50% when David Lee Roth left the band. It all ended in 1984 !

Actually, Van Halen was diminished by "51/50"........................:rofl:

"Burn!!!"


No, seriously, I know what you mean. I happen to prefer Roth-era VH, despite my younger age. BUT, otoh, 1986's '51/50' does hold great memories for me, a 'nostalgia' thing........:smile:



And, sadly, you were born too late to understand that Dire Straits' last good album was "Love Over Gold" in '82.

Actually, I prefer "Making Movies" from '80 to anything that D.S. did, though I admit not being knowledgeable about "Love Over Gold" (I only heard that album once in the mid-80's)



I kid. I kid. "To each their own." (See; now this is good fun between fellow Christians.)

:teeth:

[gharfish]

Actually, Van Halen was diminished by "51/50"........................:rofl:

"Burn!!!"Ouch, that made me "Jump" !! Ok, I see your "51/50" and raise you "II" !No, seriously, I know what you mean. I happen to prefer Roth-era VH, despite my younger age. BUT, otoh, 1986's '51/50' does hold great memories for me, a 'nostalgia' thing........:smile:My grande theory is that we are greatly predisposed to favor the music we heard while in High School.....and whatever comes later is usually considered inferior regardless of actual quality.

Yehus...I can recall "like it was yesterday" that on a day at work; I was 16 or 17, and things were going badly at the moment, and then Van Halen's "Dance the Night Away" came on the radio. Everything was cool again...

By '86 I was a new matured college grad. :ahem: <--hey, my first use of a smiley ! Van Halen's "1984" was already giving signs of 'slippage' I thought, with the super adolescent goo of "Hot For Teacher.' However, "Panama" showed that they could still ably kick booty. (But wasn't "House of Pain" just plain disturbing ? Do you have that last Lee Roth w/VH album ?) *continuing*


Actually, I prefer "Making Movies" from '80 to anything that D.S. did, though I admit not being knowledgeable about "Love Over Gold" (I only heard that album once in the mid-80's)You don't remember "Telegraph Road" ? Whuh ? Surely you remember "Industrial Disease," for being airplayed to death.

"Making Movies" had the excellent "Tunnel of Love" transitioning into "Romeo and Juliet." Powerful stuff, and nicely stretched out. Too, too long (either) to be radio eligible.

But that from anything Dire Straits did ?! Noooo !! How can you diss just the first self-titled album thusly ?! "Sultans of Swing;" no ?? And you do remember Knopfler's blunder with "Les Boys" on Making Movies, don't you ?! (oh wait. The first album wasn't 80's, but late 70's)

OK, then. You can favor "Making Movies" over "Communique" if you must.

But this duet with Sting about selling microwave ovens and such ?! A sad day for both artists. "I kid. I kid. I'm a kidder." (the insult comic dog, right ?)



PS: I recommend Sting's solo albums, "Ten Summoner's Tales" and "Mercury Falling" ('93 and '96) NOW GO BUY THEM IMMEDIATELY OR ELSE !





:teeth:Now there's an emoticon from you that's my kind of guy.

God bless,
Vance.

[ForHimAlone]

When it comes to being able to execute serious exegesis on eschatology, Tim LaHaye got Left Behind.